---

Frequency Stabilization using Fuzzy logic based Controller for Multi-Area power system in Deregulated Environment
Y.K.Bhateshvar and H.D.Mathur

AbstractThis paper attempts to develop a linearized model of automatic generation control (AGC) for an interconnected reheat type two-area thermal power system under deregulated environment. A comparison between a an conventional integral controller, proportional integral derivative (PI) controller and a fuzzy logic based controller is presented and the proposed fuzzy based controller is shown to generate the best dynamic response following a step load change with different cases of bilateral contracts in deregulated environment. In addition, performance of conventional integral controller, proportional integral derivative (PI) controller and a fuzzy logic based controller is also examined under various changes 30% in system parameters with various bilateral contracts between control areas. Keywords: Two area power system, load frequency control, fuzzy logic controller, deregulated environment. INTRODUCTION

In a power system, electricity is continuously produced and consumed simultaneously and power balance of demand-supply ratio must be maintained. In open energy market particular DISCO has the freedom to purchase the power with any GENCO, it may be in intra or inter control area. ISO is independent and disassociated agent for market participants. In the open energy market, all the transactions are done under the supervision of the ISO. There are various ancillary services are controlled by IS0 to provide secure, reliable and economical power transmission. Automatic generation control (AGC) is one of ancillary services of ISO [6]. The DISCO participation matrix (DPM) is helps to visualize the various contracts made between GENCOs and DISCOs. The schematic block diagram of two area system in deregulated environment is shown in Fig. 1. Each area is containing two GENCOs and two DISCOs [1] [6]. Block diagram of closed loop controlled system model with fuzzy controller of reheat type two-area thermal generating system is shown in Fig. 2. When power systems are connected, tie-line flows as well as frequency must be controlled. Maintaining frequency and power interchanges with interconnected control areas at the scheduled values are the two main primary objectives of a power system AGC. The Automatic Generation control for interconnected power system, achieved by measuring deviation in frequency and tie-line power flows, composite variable called the area control error (ACE) [7]. This paper presents the performance of interconnected reheat type two area thermal system

I.

In a traditional electric power system, vertically integrated utility (VIU) owned generation, transmission, and distribution, and supplies power to the customers at regulated rates. In the restructured power systems the main concept is transformation from vertically integrated utilities (VIU) to open energy market system. Aim of this was to enhance the economical efficiency of power system. With this market participants who are in this open energy market to provide energy services will be more competitive. The open market system will consist of generation companies (GENCOS), distribution companies (DISCOS), and transmission companies (TRANSCOS) and independent system operator (ISO). Independent System Operator (ISO) is introduced to implement to achieve a secure and economical operation of power systems in restructured power system [2] [4].

---

with conventional I, conventional PI and fuzzy logic controller. The conventional I and PI control strategy does not give adequate control performance when a 1% step load disturbance is given in either area of the system. Fuzzy logic controller has been proposed in this paper. By using conventional controller it is difficult to obtain optimum value of overshoot and settling time. Simulation results show that the fuzzy logic controller greatly reduces the overshoots and settling time. Simulation results also show better performance of fuzzy controller in 30% variation of system parameters in comparison of conventional I and PI controller.
II. SYSTEM E XAMINED

= 1

The system output, which depends on the area control error (ACE), is = , + (1) Where, is frequency bias constant, frequency deviation and is change in tie line power [5]. Coefficients that distribute area control error (ACE) to several GENCOs are termed as ACE participation factors (apfs), shown in apf_matrix:
1 0 _ = 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4

The system examined is consists of two control area and two GENCO and two DISCO in each in deregulated environment. The each GENCO is reheat type thermal system of equal capacity. This system model is considered in continuous operation. The nominal system parameters are given in appendix. The contracts between GENCO and DISCO are shown in DPM matrix [10].

Where, all apfs addition is equal to 1, within control area.

= 1

The contracted scheduled loads in DISCOs in Area 1 are 1 and 2 and in Area 2 are 3 and 4 and these are shown in the matrix. The uncontracted local loads in areas 1 are 1 , 2 in 2 3_ and 4_ shown in _ matrix [3].
1_ 2_ _ = 3_ 4_

Fig.1 Block diagram representing a two area interconnected power system

The concept of contract participation factor matrix (cpf_matrix) makes the visualization of contracts. The number of rows indicates to the number of GENCOs and the number of columns indicates to the number of DISCOs. Here, the ijth entry corresponds to the fraction of the total load power contracted by DISCO j from a GENCO i [1] [6]. The cpf_matrix is:
11 21 _ = 31 41 12 22 32 42 13 23 33 43 14 24 34 44

1_ _ = 2_ 3_ 4_

Where, the sum of all the entries in a column in this matrix is unity.

The total distributed power by jth DISCO, ( ) = ( )_ + ( )_ (2) Where ( )_ is contracted can be shown through cpf_matrix but uncontracted power for jth DISCO is out of scope of cpf_matrix. The total distributed power shown in matrix is: = _ + _ (3) Similar to this, total generated power through GENCOs in Area 1 are 1 and 2 and in Area 2 are 3 and 4 and these are shown in the matrix.

--Cpf11 Cpf12 Cpf13 Cpf14

+ + + + + + +

Cpf21 Cpf22 Cpf23 Cpf24

DISCO1

DISCO2

1/R1 B1 apf1 1/R2 Power Demand of Area 1 Speed Governor Reheater Turbine

+ + + +

+ +

Fuzzy
Controller1 apf2 Speed Governor Reheater Turbine

+-

Power System1

+ a12 apf3 Scheduled Power Ptie12 a12 Turbine

+ -

+ +

+ +- + +

Speed Governor

Reheater

Fuzzy
Controller2 apf4 Speed Governor Reheater Turbine

+ + -

Power System2

+
1/R3

1/R4

Power Demand of Area 2

B2

Cpf31 Cpf32 DISCO3 Cpf33 Cpf34

+ + + + + + +

Cpf41 Cpf42 DISCO4 Cpf43 Cpf44

Fig. 2: Complete System model of Load Frequency Control of Reheat type Two Area Thermalthermal power system in Deregulated Environment

---

3_

cpf13

+ 4_
cpf14

+ + + + - + + + +

Cpf31

1_

Cpf32

2_

3_

+
cpf23

Cpf41

1_

+ 4_ +
cpf24

Cpf42

2_

Fig.3 represents the block diagram representation of scheduled_Ptie12 used in Fig.2. The contracted generated powers in Areas 1 are 1_ & 2_ 2 3_ & 4_ shown in _ matrix. 1_ 2_ _ = 3_ 4_ The uncontracted powers demanded under contract violation required in Areas 1 and Area 2 are referred 1, 2, is required power by local GENCOs only in that area. That required power from GENCOs shown in _ matrix.
_ 1_ 2_ = 3_ 4_

Where 1_ and 2_ are uncontracted required power from GENCO1 and GENCO2 in area 1 and 3_ and 4_ are uncontracted required power from GENCO3 and GENCO4 in area 2. (), = ()_ (4) th Where i, referred to GENCOs within k control area. And ()_ is calculated from eq. , as: ()_ =apfi* ( )_ (5) Or in matrix form, _ =apf_matrix* _ (6) So, total required generation power in matrix form represented as: = _ + _ (7)

= _ + _ (8) The total generation required of individual GENCOs can be calculated also from equation, as: () = ( * ( )_ ) + apfi * ( )_ (9) So, total demanded power from GENCOs is shown in matrix. 1 2 = 3 4 The scheduled tie line power flow between areas 1 and 2 can be represented as:12, = (13 3 + 23 3_ + 14 4_ + 24 4_ ) (31 1_ + 41 1_ + 32 2_ + 42 2_ ) (10) III. CONTROL STRATEGIES There are different control strategies can be applied in load frequency control in power system. In this paper three controllers applied for load frequency control for two-area thermal reheat type power system. These controllers are as the following: A. Conventional Integral Controller In the system model in fig.2, in place of controller, integral controller replaced. The controller input is

---

ACEi, Ki is gain of controller. And ui is output of controller, is: = (11) The integral controller is optimized using integral square error function. For ISE technique cost function J is: J= 0 1 2 + 2 2 (12) Where T is minimum simulation time, there system is stable. The optimized value of Ki is 1.4 for I controller in model used in this paper. B. Conventional PI Controller In the system model in fig.2, in place of fuzzy controller, proportional integral controller replaced. The controller input is ACEi, Kp and Ki are gain of controller. And ui is output of controller, is: = (13) The proportional integral controller is also optimized by using same integral square error function from equation (12). The optimized value of Kp is 1.1 and Ki is 0.8 for PI controller in model used in this paper. C. Fuzzy Logic Controller Nowadays fuzzy logic is widely used in engineering problems. Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic establish the rules of a nonlinear mapping. The fuzzy logic controller modeling consists of three steps of fuzzification, determination of fuzzy control rules and defuzzification. Fuzzy logic is a systematic and easier way to implement control algorithm for uncertain and indefinite models in engineering. The load frequency control (LFC) controls the frequency and the tie-line flows between the interconnected power system areas. Many investigations in the area of LFC of interconnected power system using fuzzy logic controller have been reported in the past [8] [9]. Fuzzy logic based logical system is much closer in spirit to human thinking than classical logical systems. Due to complexity and multi-variable conditions of the power system, conventional control methods may not give satisfactory solutions. On other hand conventional controller work on linear model and fuzzy logic co ntroller is work on nonlinear model, so fuzzy logic controllers more suitable for

nonlinear power system models. On the other hand, fuzzy controllers are more robust and more reliable in solving a wide range of control problems [8]. The comparison among the proposed controller and conventional I and PI controller shows that the two important dynamic parameters i.e. overshoots and settling time with the proposed controller are better than conventional I and PI controllers.
ACEi Yi
+

ui
+

Fuzzy Logic Controller

Fig.4 : The MISO type fuzzy controller The fuzzy controller for the two input and single output type of systems MISO type is shown in Fig.4. Kp and Ki are the proportional and integral gains respectively. In this work derivative of ACE i i.e. ( /) together with ACEi is fed to the fuzzy controller. The fuzzy controller block is formed by fuzzification of ACEi and /, the inference mechanism and defuzzification. Therefore, Yi is a crisp value and ui is a control signal for the system. Mamdani fuzzy theory has been applied to determining the gain of controller [8]. = (14) The block diagram of fuzzy logic controller is shown in Fig.4. Membership Functions (MF) specifies the degree to which a given inputs belongs to set. Here, seven membership functions have been used to explore best settling time namely, Negative Very (NV), Negative Medium (NM), Negative Small (NS), Zero (Z), Positive Small (PS), Positive Medium (PM) and Positive Very (PV). The membership function sets of fuzzy logic for ACE, dACE/dt, Kp and Ki (PI Gain) are shown in Fig. 6.

Fig.5: Surface view of inputs and output

--0.01

Table.1: FUZZY RULES

ACE NV NM NS Z PS PM PV NV NV NV NM NM NS NS Z NM NV NM NM NS NS Z PS NS NM NM NS NS Z PS PS Z
NM

= PS NS NS Z PS PS PM PM PM NS Z PS PS PM PM PV PV Z PS PS PM PM PV PV

0.01 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00 = 0.00 0.00

ACE

NS NS Z PS
PS PM

As per equation to meet demanded power generated power is,

0.01 0.01 = 0.01 0.01

Assume that the load change occurs simultaneously in both areas I and II. The load is demanded only by all DISCOs in equal ratios and the value of this load demand is 0.01 pu MW for each of them. GENCO1 and GENCO2 are not contracted by any DISCOs in Area 2 for a transaction of power and GENCO3 and GENCO4 are not contracted by any DISCOs in Area 1 for a transaction of power; hence, their change in generated power is zero in the steady state. So, for this case, tie-line power flow is, calculated from equation 10, 12, = 0. In this case no GENCOs will supply uncontracted power to any of DISCOs.
Case B (Combination transactions) of Poolco and bilateral based

Fig.6: Membership functions of inputs and output variable

IV. SIMULATED TEST CASES

In this case all the DISCOs contract power with the GENCOs for power as per the following DPM. It is assumed that each DISCO demands 0.01 pu MW power from GENCOs as defined by cpfs in cpf_matrix and each GENCO participates in AGC as defined by following apf: apf1=0.5, apf2=1-apf1=0.5; apf3=0.5, apf4=1-apf3=0.5. And cpf_matrix is:
0.25 0.25 = 0.50 0 0.20 0.25 0 0.01 0.20 0 0 0.01 , _ = 0.30 0.15 0 0.01 0.30 0.60 1 0.01
0.01

Case A:
(PoolCo based transactions)

In this first case where the all GENCOs in each area participate equally in AGC, Each GENCO will supplies power to DISCOs within its control area only and ACE participation factors are, apf1=0.5, apf2=1-apf1=0.5; apf3=0.5, apf4=1-apf3=0.5. And cpf_matrix is:
0.5 0.5 0 0 0.01 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.01 = , _ = 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.01 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.01

0.01 = 0.01 0.01

0.00 = 0.00 0.00 0.00

In this case demanded power is within contract limit, As per equation (7) to meet demanded power generated power is,

--0.0155 0.0130 = 0.0010 0.0105

V. SIMULATION RESULT

So, for this case, tie-line power flow is, calculated from equation 10, 12, = 0.0025 0.011 = 0.0085. Case C (Contract violation) In this case, any DISCO may violate contracts by demanding more power than those specified in the contracts. It will be not shown in cpf_matrix. This excess demanded power is local load of the particular control area (un-contracted demand). apf1=0.5, apf2=1-apf1=0.5; apf3=0.5, apf4=1-apf3=0.5. _ is uncontracted demanded load by each DISCO. And cpf_matrix is: 0.25 0.20 0.25 0 0.01 0.25 0.20 0 0 0.01 = , = 0.50 0.30 0.15 0 0.01 0 0.30 0.60 1 0.01 0.010 0.000 0.004 0.014 = And _ = 0.000 0.010 0.008 0.018 As per equation (7) to meet demanded power generated power is, 0.0175 0.0150 = 0.0050 0.0145 The total generated power () required by individual GENCO, composed of all contracted and un-contracted loads. Each GENCO shares the uncontracted load of its own control area according to its own ACE participation factor. In this case 1, is 0.004 and this uncontracted load demand is equally generation from local GENCO1 and GENCO2 in equal ratio as per specified in apfs. So, 1_ =0.002 and 2_ = 0.002. Similar to this in area 2 2, is 0.008, and 3_ =0.004 and 4_ = 0.004. So, for this case, tie-line power flow is, calculated from equation 10, 12, = 0.0025 0.011 = 0.0085.

A fuzzy logic controller has been applied to a reheat type two area thermal power system. Matlab/Simulink is used for simulation purpose. The values of system parameters given in appendix table.2 are used for all controllers for a comparative study. Table.1 presents the view of rules for fuzzy logic controller utilized to design controller. In rule base 49 rules are designed to get the response. There are 7 triangular membership functions are considered for inputs (ACEi and dACEi/dt) and one output (ui) as shown in Fig. 6. Frequency deviations of both areas and tie line deviation after sudden load change in each area for test cases A, B and C are shown in Fig. 7, 8 and 9 respectively. Two performance criteria were selected in the Simulation, settling time and peak overshoot. Peak overshoots and settling time for 5% band of both areas and tie line deviation after sudden load change also 30 % with change in system parameters in each area for test cases A, B and C are shown in Fig. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Effect of 30 % change in parameter values for values of , T 12 and Tp is examined; table.3 shows different values of these system parameters. The comparison of dynamic performances of various controllers with the proposed controller shows better results in terms of lesser settling time and peak overshoot. In Fig. 7, 8 and 9, it indicates that change in frequency in area 1, area 2 and change in tie line power are getting settled within reasonably good time.

0.02 using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller

0.01

Change in Freq 1-->

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04 0

10

20

30

40 50 60 Time in seconds-->

70

80

90

100

(a)

--2 0 x 10
-3

0.02

using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller

0.01

Change in P12 tie line-->

-2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 0

Change in Freq 2-->

-0.01

-0.02 using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time in seconds--> 70 80 90 100

10

20

30

40 50 60 Time in seconds-->

70

80

90

100

-0.03

-0.04 0

(b)
2 1.5
Change in P12 tie line-->

x 10

-4

(c) Fig.8: Comparison of conventional I, conventional PI and Fuzzy Controller for reheat type two area thermal power system with 1% step load change by each DISCO as Case B: Combination of Poolco and Bilateral Contracts (a) frequency deviation in area 1, (b) frequency deviation in area 2, (c) tie-line power deviation
0.03 0.02 0.01
Change in Freq 1-->

using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller

using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller

1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1

0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04

-1.5 -2 0

-0.05

10

20

30

40 50 60 Time in seconds-->

70

80

90

100

-0.06 0

10

20

30

40 50 60 Time in seconds-->

70

80

90

100

Change in Freq 2-->

(c) Fig.7: Comparison of conventional I, conventional PI and Fuzzy Controller for reheat type two area thermal power system with 1% step load change by each DISCO as Case A: Poolco (a) frequency deviation in area 1, (b) frequency deviation in area 2, (c) tie-line power deviation
0.03 0.02 0.01
Change in Freq 1-->

(a)
0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time in seconds--> 70 80 90 100

0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 0 using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller

-0.06 0

(b)
1 x 10
-3

10

20

30

40 50 60 Time in seconds-->

70

80

90

100

0 -1
Change in P12 tie line-->

(a)

-2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller

0.02 using Fuzzy Controller using PI Controller using I Controller

0.01

Change in Freq 2-->

-8 -9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time in seconds--> 70

80

90

100

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04 0

10

20

30

40 50 60 Time in seconds-->

70

80

90

100

(c) Fig.9: Comparison of conventional I, conventional PI and Fuzzy Controller for reheat type two area thermal power system with load change by each DISCO as Case C: Contract Violation (a)frequency deviation in area 1, (b) frequency deviation in area 2, (c) tie-line power deviation

(b)

---

Peak Undershoot
0.00000 f1(-30%down) -0.01000 -0.02000 -0.03000 -0.04000 -0.05000 -0.06000 Fig.10: Peak undershoot comparison at variation 30% variation in system parameters for Case A. f1 (Nominal V.) f2(Nominal V.) f2(-30%down) f1(+30%up) f2(+30%up) I Controller PID Controller 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

Settling Time (5%)

I Controller f1 (Nominal f1(+30%up) f1(-30%down) f2(Nominal V.) f2(+30%up) f2(-30%down) Ptie12(Nomi Ptie12(+30% Ptie12(- f1 (Nominal V.) f1(+30%up) f1(-30%down) f2(Nominal V.) f2(+30%up) f2(-30%down) Ptie12(Nomina Ptie12(+30%up) Ptie12(- f1(-30%down) f1 (Nominal V.) Ptie12(Nomin PID Controller Fuzzy L. Controller

Case A:

Fuzzy L. Controller

Fig.13: Settling Time comparison at variation 30% variation in system parameters for Case B

Settling Time (5%)

30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 PID Controller I Controller 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

Settling Time (5%)

I Controller

PID Controller
Fuzzy L. Controller

Fuzzy L. Controller

Fig.11: Settling Time comparison at variation 30% variation in system parameters for Case A

Fig.14: Settling Time comparison at variation 30% variation in system parameters for Case C

Peak Undershoot
Ptie12(Nominal Ptie12(- 0.00000 f1(-30%down) f1 (Nominal V.) f2(+30%up) -0.01000 -0.02000 -0.03000 -0.04000 -0.05000 -0.06000 Fig.12: Peak overshoot comparison at variation 30% variation in system parameters for Case B 0.00000 -0.01000 -0.02000 -0.03000 PID Controller Fuzzy L. Controller -0.04000

f2(+30%up)

Ptie12(-

Peak Undershoot
I Controller PID Controller Fuzzy L. Controller

I Controller

-0.05000
Case B: -0.06000 -0.07000 -0.08000

Case C:

Fig.15: Peak overshoot comparison at variation 30% variation in system parameters for Case C

---

The simulation was repeated with various instantaneous of load changes and always found that results from proposed controller are better. The simulations results show that proposed method of fuzzy logic controller for load frequency control in deregulated environment is giving distinguish reduction in settling time and in peak overshoot in compare of conventional I and PI controller.
VI. CONCLUSION

In this paper, fuzzy logic controller is proposed for load frequency control of interconnected power systems in deregulated environment. The controller performance is observed on the basis of dynamic parameters i.e. settling time and peak overshoot. Results of simulation shows that proposed controller provides a better performance when compared conventional I and conventional PI controller in settling time and peak overshoot. Robustness of the proposed controller is also checked with changing system parameters. This justifies that Fuzzy logic controller provides a stable operation for an interconnected reheat type two area thermal-thermal power system.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

[7] Kundur, P. 1994. Power system stability and control, McGraw-Hill, New York. [8] am, E and Kocaarslan, I. 2005. Load frequency control in two area power systems using fuzzy logic controller, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 46, No. 2, Jan.233-243. [9] H.D. Mathur, H.V. Manjunath, Frequency stabilization using fuzzy logic based controller for multi-area power system, The South Pacific Journal of Natural Science, 2007, 4, 22-30. [10] Manoranjan Paridal and J. Nandal, Automatic Generation Control of a Hydro-Thermal System in Deregulated Environment, Electrical Machines and Systems, 2005. ICEMS 2005, Vol. 2, 942 - 947 IX. APPENDIX Table 2: System Parameters Rating (MW) Tg1,Tg2,Tg3 and Tg4 (sec) Tt1,Tt2,Tt3 and Tt4 (sec) Tr1,Tr2,Tr3 and Tr4 (sec) Kr1,Kr2,Kr3 and Kr4 b1,b2,b3 and b4 R1,R2,R3 and R4 Kp1,Kp2,Kp3 and Kp4 Tp1,Tp2,Tp3 and Tp4 (sec) T12 a12 2000 0.08 0.3 10 0.5 0.425 2.4 120 20 0.545 -1

Table 3: Different cases with different System Parameters

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, BITS, Pilani. This work is done under BITS seed grant scheme.
VIII. REFERENCES [1] Donde Vaibhav, Pai MA, Hiskens Iran A. Simulation and optimization in an AGC system after deregulation, IEEE Trans Power System 2001; 16(3):4818. [2] Jerry J. Ancona: A bid solicitation and selection method for: developing a competitive spot priced electric market, IEEE Trans. on Power systems, voi.12, no.2, May, 1997. [3] M.L. Kothari, N. Sinha, Mohammad Rafi, Automatic Generation Control of an interconnected power system under deregulated environment IEEE International Conference on Power Quality98, Hyderabad, 19-20 June, 1998. [4] P. Bhatt, Ranjit Roy, S.P. Ghoshal, Optimized multi area AGC simulation in restructured power systems , Electrical Power and Energy Systems 32 (2010) 311322. [5] Fosha, C.E. and Elgead, O.I. 1970. The megawatt frequency control problem: A new approach via optimal control theory.IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. PAS-89.563-577. [6] Nagrath, I.J. and Kothari, D.P. 1994. Power system engineering. Tata Mc-Graw Hill, New Delhi, India.

Case 1: (Nominal Value) Case 2: (+30% increase) Case 3: (-30% decrease)

Tp 20 26 14

b 0.425 0.5525 0.2975

T12 0.545 0.7085 0.3815